Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
HC determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
HC determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.